The real estate sales contract of this case between the defendant and the debtor B should be cancelled as a piracy.

It is insufficient to recognize that the delinquent taxpayer B is only a title trustee of the instant real estate, and there is no evidence to find otherwise that the instant real estate is not a responsible property provided to creditors of BB as joint collateral.

2013 Ghana 214822 Revocation of fraudulent act

Korea

NewA

January 22, 2014

April 30, 2014

1. The sales contract concluded on May 7, 2009 between the defendant and the non-party B shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership completed by the Busan District Court No. 19535, May 7, 2009 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list to the non-party B by the defendant.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The director of the Busan Eastern Tax Office notified this B of six tax amounts, including global income tax and value added tax, upon setting each payment period as listed in the table 1 below. However, this B does not pay 123,167,730 won in total.

B. On May 7, 2009, this B sold or purchased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, who is a fraud, and on the same day, this B completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the instant sales contract as Busan District Court No. 19535 on May 7, 2009 to the Defendant on the same day.

C. Meanwhile, this B did not have any property other than the instant real property at the time of the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 7 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted;

A. According to the above facts, as seen earlier, ① six claims, such as global income tax and value-added tax, etc., on May 7, 2009, which were at the time of the instant sales contract, have already been established on May 7, 2009, are as follows. ② Since the instant sales contract was concluded with the Defendant, the act of BB’s entering into the instant sales contract with the Defendant as a result of disposing of the instant real estate, which is the only property without any particular property, constitutes a fraudulent act, as it reduces the creditor’s joint security.

B. Also, in light of the various circumstances indicated in the argument of the instant case, such as the relationship between B and the Defendant, the funds of B at the time of the instant sales contract, the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the details of the instant sales contract and the developments leading thereto, and the circumstances after the instant sales contract, it is reasonable to deem that B had known that the instant sales contract was an act detrimental to the creditor, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion

① The real owner of the instant real estate is the BB’s husband Park CC and the BB is merely a trustee. As such, the instant real estate cannot be deemed a responsible property offered to the creditors of the BB as joint collateral. ② The Defendant purchased the instant real estate by paying the actual purchase price to ParkCC, not the BB, and thus, did not know that the instant sales contract would prejudice the general creditors of the BB.

B. It is insufficient to acknowledge that the judgment on the argument that this BB is only the title truster of the instant real estate is the actual owner of the instant real estate and that this BB is only the title trustee only by the statement of the evidence Nos. 4 through 14, and there is no evidence to find otherwise that the instant real estate is not the responsible property provided to the creditors of this BB as joint collateral. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

C. Determination as to the defendant's bona fide defense

The written evidence Nos. 1 through 14 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the instant sales contract had not known that it would prejudice the general creditors of the BB, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Defendant’s bona fide objection is without merit.

4. Conclusion

A. Accordingly, the instant sales contract concluded between the Defendant and the BB on the instant real estate shall be revoked as a piracy, and the Defendant, as a reinstatement, shall be obliged to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate, which was completed with respect to the instant real estate.

B. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.